Most Discussed

There are many implications in altering penalty rates, according to a professor of employment relations

By now, most HR professionals are well aware of the power of social recruitment. While LinkedIn is perhaps a primary platform, some organisations have also used Facebook, Twitter and other social media avenues to find candidates.

The advantages are clear: social media is cheap (free in many cases) and more importantly allows for others to share posts. Employees, friends of employees and anyone else who sees a recruitment-related posting can painlessly interact with and share the information with their own online network. It’s also ideal for tapping into passive candidates.

In order to help organisations leverage their potential social recruitment, Work4 has devised the Social Recruitment Score, which analyses web data such as spread over social media platforms, as well as activity.

All employers must do is enter their website and a work email address. Data is then collected from the web and presented to them – the process taking less than a minute. Employers are then given an overall score out of 100, as well as individual scores for Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook, as well as more detailed analytics centring on their activity and engagement.

Without giving too much away, it turns out we’re doing okay – although there is room for improvement. Our Twitter is doing pretty well, although we apparently could afford to tweet more, and perhaps create a separate Twitter page dedicated to hiring.

Our mobile compatibility came in at 100%, and our referral opportunity was alright. These are some great insights and do provide a good backdrop and starting point.

However, some things about our results seemed a little odd.

Work4 has in some instances confused us with a security and investigations firm, and has provided their data. While this information can be changed, it could raise concerns for organisations who wish to keep all analytics more guarded.

Also worth noting is that generic email addresses – such as Gmail – are not accepted. While most organisations will have domain-based email addresses, some start-ups and other professionals may simply choose not to, and they are locked out from using this system.

Although this originally seemed like a security measure, other websites that HC staff are involved with (that are in no way linked to HC or Key Media) were entered without changing email addresses, and access to those analytics were made available.

While these problems are minor, they do slightly degrade the quality of the information given.

Employers should also understand that the social media avenues they utilise are not necessarily represented: the website only measures Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and an organisation’s own jobs site. These certainly make up a bulk of social media, but professionals in other industries will know that these are not necessarily the only platforms used. Most notably missing is Google+.

The website is a novel idea and is quick and easy to use. As mentioned, pages that information is sourced from can be altered if they are incorrect. All in all, the website can prompt employers to start thinking about their social recruitment strategy, although further consultation from experts is recommended as there is only so much that can be gained from the service.